Bloggers Specials this week

wannabe the very fact that she mentions her DH is in prison for rape, should be the alarm call.

It doesn't mean that the blog might be considered not consistent with MN ethos automatically; but it should mean that it's worthy of further investigation.

And that further investigation, with a very few clicks, would have revealed just how inappropriate the blog was.

I totally agree with all your points about the blogger needing real support from MN. I'm not sure she's in a place where she can face up to the reality of her situation yet, but I hope she knows that when she's ready to, she will get all the support she needs from MN.

Wannabe at no point have I or anyone on this thread said the blogger does not need or deserve the support of this parenting forum. I have made that point very clear in all my posts and expressly in at least one.

Wannabe if you read my other posts you will see I expressly state that the only issue is with the rape denial and that everything else would fit the aims and ethos. Other posters have made similar points.

It doesn't matter what the majority of the blog is about. It is written from the premise that this man is not guilty. He was tried by jury and found guilty of a crime with minuscule conviction rates. I read the first two and last two posts on the blog. There was enough in there to worry about.

I think I'll have to agree to differ on the ethos point.

I think she does mention it, actually. I can go and check, but I think she mentions his conviction resulted from a DNA sample given following DV.

I don't think anyone is suggesting this woman shouldn't get support from MN. But this is a blog, which is different.

"The convicts blog does not meet the aims." I disagree. She is a parent bringing up her children while her husband is serving a prison sentence. She is a parent, posting on a parenting forum, how does that not meet with the aims?

And how many other women, mothers, do you think there might be out there who are bringing up children single-handedly while their husbands/partners do time?

The crime is emotive, I get that and I agree, and I cannot see how anyone could stand by and defend a convicted rapist. But equally I cannot understand how a woman can stay with a man who beats her up time after time, yet many do - this particular woman included if google is to be believed.

Just because this woman's husband is doing time doesn't make her less of a parent, or less entitled to the support offered by a parenting forum.

agree with MmeL that it's not about a mn ethos.. If you look at the bloggers network the variety is immense. There are parenting blogs, craft blogs, cookery blogs, my own blog is an opinions blog which centres mostly on my opinions of news events (although I branch out from time to time into other realms) but no parenting or children in sight.

I've just read the blog and without going googling to find the details of the crime I can see how it could have made it through. Because only in the first post does the poster make mention of the actual crime. There are only two places where she mentions the fact that she believes him to be innocent. Nowhere does she mention that he was violent towards her, there is mention of his being suspicious/insecure in one part but that is all. The rest is predominantly about her life, which will of course include prison visits because that is now a part of her daily life.

I fail to see how it made it into blog of the week purely because of the small number of posts on it.

But on reading the actual blog, while she is of course defending a rapist and that is not to be excused, it doesn't read like a blog of someone who is continually defending a rapist, iyswim, it reads as the blog of the wife and mother living her life while her husband does time. In fact if you take the actual crime out of the equasion, it is exactly the kind of blog that might fit with some peoples' idea of the mn "ethos" in terms of that it is a site for parents... this woman is a parent living a hard life...

So on that basis I can see why and how it slipped through.

And knowing that there are hundreds and hundreds of blogs on the network, some with hundreds and hundreds of posts, I can also see how it's just not possible to read through all of them in their entirety to ensure that they won't offend.

I should be clear - I don't think Bidisha blogs about parenting. She blogs about feminism which is relevant of interest to the MN demographic.

Our aim is to:

? Make parents' lives easier by pooling knowledge, advice and support.

? We try, as far as possible to let the conversation flow and not to over-moderate. Mumsnet is a site for grown-ups.

That's the aims of MN as published by MN. I think MN does have an ethos. We might not be able to articulate it fully but most of us know what it is when we stray outside of it or see others do so. Part of that ethos is seeing parents as people, not just mum or dad. I would say the bloggers network reflects that.

For example, the Bidisha blog. She's not a parent but she writes eloquently on issues that affect parents, particularly mothers being a feminist blogger. That fits with the first aim and also the second of being for grown-ups.

Blogs about craft, feminism, parenting, cooking, activism etc etc are all relevant because they fit with the aims and consequently the ethos of the site. The convicts blog does not meet the aims.

The Bloggers Network is different to the Talk boards. There is less moderation by other posters. There is a tacit understanding that the premise of each blog reflects the Mumsnet ethos in some way.

Sorry, but I have to contradict this.

I don't think that each blog reflects MN ethos in some way.

They are VERY varied, both in topic and in opinions.

And that gives credence to a "MN ethos", which I am not actually sure what this is or how you would define it.

ok, so they would perhaps not have accepted a blog from BNP and there is an emphasis on parents and parenting, but they are not all MNetty blogs.

For me it's really simple: There is no place on Mumsnet for defence of convicted rapists (in this case he was convicted on strong forensic evidence). There is no place on Mumsnet for perpetuating the damage done to a rapist's' victim by tacit support for her denial of her abuser's guilt.

In this particular case, as I and many have said, she has a right to her opinions and to publish her blog. MN has no business assisting the promotion of a blog that protests the innocence of a convicted rapist regardless of how small a percent of the total blog postings that forms.

The Bloggers Network is different to the Talk boards. There is less moderation by other posters. There is a tacit understanding that the premise of each blog reflects the Mumsnet ethos in some way. That is not the case on the Talk boards where it's clear that each opinion expressed is independent and anything that deviates from the ethos is picked up by the self-moderation of other posters.

I don't believe MN read all of the blogs suggested for the bloggers network. And therein lies the problem. That and the naivety/ignorance/stupidity of a single MNHQer (and that's for MNHQ to investigate, not us. Not least because we can't).

I do not believe this monumental fuck up is indicative of a problem with MN's culture or ethos. If I thought that I wouldn't use the site.

This is something I tried to say in my first post on this thread and didn't really manage to articulate, but I'm thinking of it again reading wannaBe's post.

This woman is a victim of DV, which she herself says, and which she thinks was brought on by her own PND. I can't begin to say how sad and upset for her than makes me feel. I wish I could help her. I bet other people feel the same. This is one of the things MN is good at, is reaching out to women in situations like this.

But, this blog is by a woman who stands by a convicted rapist. It has been promoted on a busy website. I think it would be massively naive not to predict that, had it remained, it would soon have received some very upset, angry comments because, frankly, some people do that. I don't think, for the record, that anyone on this thread is coming at it from that angle. But come on, someone sooner or later would have had a rant at this woman. As no doubt happened on the threads wannaBe mentions.

That would not only deflect support from the blogger, who has started her blog because she feels isolated and scared, and whom many of us would be concerned for given what she says about DV, but it would also deflect attention from the perpetrators of rape and the victims of it. I think this woman would be the target of anger that is really generated by what a court has judged that her husband did. And then the focus is off rapists, off rape survivors, and back onto a woman who's effectively standing in front of her husband taking the flack. Score one for the patriarchy.

I don't think individuals MNHQ necessarily should have been expected to see that one coming and it is more a judgment call, but it is important too.

There is a difference though, I think, wannabe. In part because this is a crime against women, and MN is a site where victims of that crime come for support (as they do for domestic abuse). And also because the conviction rates for rape are so much lower than for other crimes, and victims are notoriously disbelieved in a way which simply doesn't apply to other crimes.

In view of this, I think it is especially important that mumsnet is seen to protect the women who have been raped who come here for support that is often not forthcoming elsewhere.

I agree that the wife is also a victim.

And I agree that we need to consider the victims of all crimes.

But it's not as if this poster has not received support elsewhere on the boards. I don't think anyone is saying that is wrong. It's her blog being promoted that is inappropriate. So TBH, I do not think it can be compared with all the other cases of MNers supporting posters in situations where they were defending or standing by convicted criminals.

Tbh I don't think it can ever be viewed in black and white.

I read this thread last night and although I haven't read the blog in question I can absolutely see that it is somewhat inappropriate to promote the blog of a woman who is defending a convicted rapist.

but I wonder where we draw the line?

When puddytats' dh went to prison for fraud she protested his innocence even though he pleaded guilty, and many mumsnetters supported her. (this was still a woman defending a convicted criminal).

When Fran Lyon was battling against social services wanting to remove her child she posted all over the boards and mumsnetters supported her, to the extent that anyone who spoke out against her was quickly silenced by the majority. NO she hadn't been convicted of anything yet but to be honest none of us could have known either way whether ss in fact did have good grounds and whether that baby might have been at risk.

When the sally clarke/Donna Anthony/Angela Cannings cases were ongoing many mumsnetters were in support of those even though they were (at the time) convicted murderers.

When a relative of the couple jailed for poisoning their adopted child with salt came on here protesting their innocence mumsnetters supported them and believed them.

Now I will add at this point that in many of the instances listed above, convictions have been quashed and those particular individuals were released, so in fact maybe that support was not unfounded. But at the time we didn't know that - at the time people were standing behind child murderers and abusers, and other convicted criminals. And on a parenting forum child abuse is surely no less of an emotive subject than rape?

For the record I agree there is nothing inspirational about someone who defends a convicted rapist. But equally I think there is nothing inspirational about defending a convicted fraudster, or child killer, or supporting someone who is suspected of being a risk to their child from leaving the country to escape social services.

If mumsnet shouldn't be supporting the wife of a convicted rapist, then perhaps mumsnet ought to also think about whether posts in support of other convicted criminals should be reconsidered as well.

Either we're supportive, or we're not. Crime is crime, and while some crimes are of course far more emotive due to their nature, someone isn't less of a criminal because their crime was fraud as opposed to rape.

The blog poster here is also a victim. If I'm right (and I haven't read the blog, perhaps someone could pm it to me?) the DNA came to light because of an attack on the actual blogger herself? so she is a victim of domestic violence, and is still being loyal to her own abuser. That in itself makes her worthy of our support, does it not?

I absolutely agree that the blog should not have been featured as blog of the week. But if it is being removed from the network entirely, I do think that the reasons behind this should be considered. Is it being removed because the man she is defending is a rapist? or is it because he is a convicted criminal? Because if the former, then I think this needs to be considered, and I think that if someone is being rejected from the network on the basis they are defending a convicted rapist, then that filter needs to be extended to include all crimes, because all crimes have victims. It's just that we often don't consider the victims of many crimes (fraud often considered a victimless crime, for instance).

.

Yes, I see what you mean.

'we all know that going to the boss is a last resort'

Well, exactly.

That is the point I am making.

I don't expect Justine and everyone else to be available for an instant response, but why did anyone need a 'last resort' in this case? Should it not have been a simple matter of saying 'that is obviously wrong, I will remove the links to it and issue an apology'? The fact this wasn't done suggests at least some members did not realize what they were looking at. Which is, as you say, understandable given how widespread rape myths are, but still I would think a cause for concern.

Yes, I see what you are saying.

At the same time, it does bear remembering that MN went from not having a blog network to getting dozens of applications. At one point there was a waiting period of many many weeks as the BN staff caught up on the backlog.

I don't know about the assessing process, but I presume with that many blogs to look at, many were perhaps not looked at in such great detail. And sadly, this one slipped through.

Perhaps this is something that needs looking at, but I know I saw a few threads on the BN at the time with people pressing for an answer if their blog would be accepted.

I do know that this blog and one other blog that has raised my eyebrows, and I did mention the other to MNHQ, but did not report this one (which I now regret, as it would have saved Jently all of this).

I presume that although things are reported to MNHQ, it is the person who is on duty who has to make that decision - do I try and handle this myself or do I got to the boss - and we all know that going to the boss is a last resort.

I think we are agreeing BR.

I think as well, we know that MNHQ can take constructive criticism - it's not as if we're pointing fingers at another poster for the sake of it, we're talking about something that we and lots of other women on the site feel strongly about.

Justine clearly got it instantly.

Sorry, cross posted with LRD.

See that's the thing MmeL. I'm not sure it is unfair.

Given that MN has so many regular threads about DV, rape etc., and they are such sensitive and political issues, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect staff employed there, to have at least a basic level of awareness of them, enough at least to say: "oops, here's this blog and I think it's OK, but I know there's some controversy about this issue so I'm going to pass it higher on up the chain just to be sure".

I'd think exactly the same about a blog about breastfeeding or any other area of parenting/ relationships/ modern life which regularly raises passions on MN. Outside of here, these issues aren't really known about; but here, they're hot potatoes and I'm just very surprised that staff don't know that.

I'm not berating Justine about it, she obviously got it as soon as she saw it; but I'm questioning why MNHQ appears to be an environment where it's even possible not to get it. It's so basic.

Mme - thanks for explaining.

My intention wasn't to 'berate' anyone, just to explain why I was worried. I understand Justine and the others may well not feel the same, and that's their right. It's just I'd feel stupid if I didn't make the point when it is quite an important issue.

I do take your point about that widespread awareness of rape myths is lacking.

I suspect it is that lack of awareness that leads MNHQ to see this as an isolated 'human error' whereas others such as myself are surprised so many people working for MN all made the same human error of the course of several months (?) while the blog was being evaluated and several hours while different MNHQ people responded on this thread.

I'm not interested in having a go and I am still impressed by Justine's very thorough apology, but if this problem is coming from a lack of awareness it's only right to say so.

It is worrying that the errors of judgement in approving the blog, then making it blog of the week, the writing of the crass blurb to publicise it, the feeble response from the blog team on this thread - all this speaks of a massive failure to get it on the part of at least one member of MN staff. Sure, people make mistakes and it was obvious to everyone that the moment you saw this thread Justine, you got the problem. Fully and instantly. I guess we're just shocked and disappointed that not everyone at MN towers has that kind of grasp on an issue that is so important for women. If they had, this would never have happened in the first place. It's not a trivial slip-up that anyone could have made; it speaks of a really worrying level of ignorance on the part of those responsible. So I hope that whoever was responsible for this series of errors will take the time to understand why people were so upset by it.

And, yes. I hope jently is ok. She is the real loser in this.

I think what many might not be aware of is that the BN is a relatively new venture and that the people who work there are (I think) relatively new to MN

It is clear to me - because I have been on MN for years and have read enough threads on this topic - that the blog was borderline for acceptance and certainly shouldn't have been promoted

We have to allow MNHQ time to talk to the staff concerned - who don't work at the weekend I think - and hear their response.

Not everyone at MNHQ will be quite so aware of the issues that surround this topic - I know I wasn't until I informed myself when I first started reading threads about rape myths.

Remember that the general public is well brain washed by the press to believe that rape convictions are passed on innocent men.

Berating MNHQ and the staff fr not being aware of this is slightly unfair. As soon as Justine and Olivia were made aware of this , they stepped in and apologised grovelled and have promised to take steps to prevent this kind of thing happening again.

And mistakes happen. We are all human.

I'm sorry, I don't really see how a blog about supporting a convicted rapist required any talking through. I expect this is an area where we differ, and that's maybe the point about 'ethos' that others were trying to make.

I was surprised the immediate response wasn't to remove the links to the blog, because to me it seemed so obviously inappropriate as not to require a big roundtable discussion. I'm not so naive as to imagine you all sitting around table eagerly following every post - despite the amusing stuff about sharing biscuits with the blog team when they decide which rape myths to promote - but I do know individual members of the team often act on their own initiative to delete things that are clearly inappropriate. It surprised me this wasn't one of them, but obviously you and the team don't feel the same.